NikoDoby said:
Guys think of it this way, we all know it's wrong to tell an African American couple that you (a wedding photographer) don't do "colored" weddings. Would the courts say that's not discrimination because you're just following your religious beliefs?

That's a good point. But in a way, I feel as if I really don't want to be shooting something, the pictures will come out crappy. I think the same would happen to that guy- he really didn't want to accept that shoot. If he was forced to by law, perhaps he wouldn't come out with optimum results?

Quick question to you wedding photographers- what happens if the couple absolutely does not like your work? Do they get a refund or something?

I know laws are not meant to be broken, but photography has an artistic side to it that plumbers and mechanics don't have. With that either it's broken or not, but can you really force someone to do photography? It's like forcing me to paint like Monet, I have no art training, it's going to absolutely come out like shit. I can paint you stick figures though. :D

jjreason said:
But being African-American is not a choice. Until they have proven that homosexuality is genetics and not a choice, I should be able to choose whether I want to be associated with them or not, just like they choose who they want to be associated with...One physical harm comes into play its a completely different story. EVERYONE should feel 100% safe in the USA.

NikoDoby said:
Guys think of it this way, we all know it's wrong to tell an African American couple that you (a wedding photographer) don't do "colored" weddings. Would the courts say that's not discrimination because you're just following your religious beliefs?

But being African-American is not a choice. Until they have proven that homosexuality is genetics and not a choice, I should be able to choose whether I want to be associated with them or not, just like they choose who they want to be associated with...One physical harm comes into play its a completely different story. EVERYONE should feel 100% safe in the USA.

Guys think of it this way, we all know it's wrong to tell an African American couple that you (a wedding photographer) don't do "colored" weddings. Would the courts say that's not discrimination because you're just following your religious beliefs?

I think this has generated a new source of income for me. I'm going to call other photographers until I find one that will not shoot a gay wedding. Then I'm going to sue them. I doubt the fact I'm not gay or getting married will have any impact on the success of my future income.

heartyfisher said:
I think its just wrong to force someone to do things against their will.

Just because some one thinks what they are doing is right it does not make it right to force another person to agree. Works both ways.

The issue is that when you accept the veil of protection offered by incorporation you also accept a different set of responsibilities than those an individual would have.

Everyone seems to be looking at this through the eyes of the individual:state social contract. What this case was about, though, is the corporation:state social contract.

Again, I'm trying my best not to touch upon the subject of anti-discrimination laws as I have mixed feelings, BUT this case needs to be looked at in the context of a photographer who willingly gave up certain "freedoms" insofar as business dealings are concerned in exchange for state granted liability protection.

I think people are missing a crucial point. When you enter the marketplace, you accept responsibility to abide by our laws whether you like them or not. Failure to provide service by photographers might seem trivial because the output of our work is never a matter of survival. But, the ability to deny service by other professions from plumbers and mechanics to doctor and nurses, marginalizes those in protected classes and potentially threatens their survival.

Where can the offense to our wedding photographer be limited? The bride and groom are heterosexual, but the attendants or relatives are not - do you just take the couple's photo and refuse to take more?

Living in the liberal climate of the San Francisco Bay Area, I find small minded prejudice and discrimination intolerable and am very glad we have laws to limit the impact of these behaviors. I don't see this as a different issue than the civil rights I worked on in the 60's, and I certainly don't want to roll that back.

NSXType-R said:
Ouch. That sucks. I don't understand, why does the couple insist on having that specific photographer take photos of them? It's wrong to discriminate, but isn't disrespecting the opinions of others just as bad?

Ouch. That sucks. I don't understand, why does the couple insist on having that specific photographer take photos of them? It's wrong to discriminate, but isn't disrespecting the opinions of others just as bad? The photographer flat out doesn't want to do the job.

I've look back at the rulings in this case. It probably would not have mattered here if the photographer was, or was not, incoprorated in any way. She had made an argument under another law that prohibits the state from restricting a "person's" free exercise of religion (claiming she was exercising her religious beliefs against same sex marriage). The Court shot that down quite easily, saying the LLC is not a person.

Yes, JA, corporations and individuals are both required to follow the law. However, without particular reference to the New Mexico case (I'll actually read the opinions tonight to figure out what exactly happened there), individuals often ARE treated differently from business entities, and many laws apply to businesses, but do not apply to individuals. Also, some regulations and laws only apply to businesses that employ more than a certain number of people - ostensibly because abiding by the regulations would be too burdensome on small business.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not seeing why an individual would be treated differently from a corporation in this case. Help me out, warprints. Corporations and individuals are both required to obey the law, aren't they?

But this case revolves around public accommodation, right? The case was lost because of a public accommodation that discriminated based on sexual orientation. Which is why you say the LLC of the photography business came into play.